On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Bernd Schmidt <bschm...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/09/2015 02:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> What kind of diagnostic message? The ELF linker seems to have managed to >> do >>> >>> without for a long time. Is there some discussion of this on the binutils >>> list that you can point to? >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/_ZPPq_c8FSQ > > > Hmm, near the end we have this message from Cary: > >>> So I assume that it is incorrect for gcc(1) to mark an undefined function >> >> >>> reference as STT_NOTYPE. I think that is the bug HJ pointed out. >> >> >> No, I don't think it's incorrect at all. It's merely a >> quality-of-implementation issue: setting the undef to STT_FUNC or >> STT_OBJECT allows the linker to diagnose a mismatch between reference >> and definition, but, traditionally, Unix linkers have always been >> happy to bind symbols without checking types, and I'll bet there's >> still plenty of code that depends on that. > > > So there does not appear to be consensus quite yet. Cc'ing Cary in case he > has additional input. >
Everyone agrees that it is a quality-of-implementation issue. -- H.J.
